Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[repoman]

Can someone get these two fired?



This video comes to mind in response:

 

[whichphilosophy]

Firing him would be on the basis of his views.

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you wrote we don't know why he was fired.

For idiots it depends on the nature of the work. They can't do all jobs.

Ask your co-workers how they feel working with idiots.

The reports suggested this but this was not confirmed as I pointed out. Idiots can do some jobs and it would be foolish to put them in jobs they cannot do.

 

[laughing dog]

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you wrote we don't know why he was fired.
Ask your co-workers how they feel working with idiots.

The reports suggested this but this was not confirmed as I pointed out.

And yet you are taking it a gospel.

Idiots can do some jobs and it would be foolish to put them in jobs they cannot do.

Given that you continue to ignore or misunderstand the salient business reasons for firing idiots, your comment is apropos.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And yet you are taking it a gospel.

Idiots can do some jobs and it would be foolish to put them in jobs they cannot do.

Given that you continue to ignore or misunderstand the salient business reasons for firing idiots, your comment is apropos.

I am stating the scenario assuming he was fired.

Actually I spent years troubleshooting problems caused by idiot management. If staff continually mess up, it's because when a fish rots, it starts at the head.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm late to this party, but I think that he should not have been fired. If his Nazi sympathies aren't affecting his job performance or his relations with other employees, then he deserves to stay on the job.

He wasn't fired because of job performance. He wasn't really even fired because of his employer's views of his beliefs. He was fired (as were his spouse and brother-in-law) because the owner of the restaurant received threats of violence and death if they weren't fired. His personal beliefs weren't affecting his job performance, given that until the article was published, his employer did not know he was a white nationalist.

That puts this into a pretty tricky spot for me. On the one hand, I strongly uphold each person's right to both belief and speech, regardless of how odious I find those beliefs to be. In this respect, I am opposed to him losing his job as a result of his beliefs, let alone the secondary effect on his family. On the other hand, I can definitely sympathize with the restaurant owner for his actions, as I would not expect the owner to suffer violence or threats in order to protect the rights of another person.

At the end of the day, to me, the blame lies with the mob mentality that it's acceptable to threaten others in order to squash their beliefs. That view is profoundly undemocratic.

The big mistake he made was: extensively expressing his views to a popular & widely distributed publication (the first article). He made himself a public figure, somewhat of a poster-child, for views he knew were very controversial and hated by most. Even if his bosses wanted to keep him, they were put into a serious bind because of the article.
He was foolish if he didn’t realize there might be some serious consequences because of the article.

I get that, and I'm not suggesting that he should be protected from the consequences of his actions.

But does that justify the actions in this case? Does it justify his employer getting threatened? Or his family being threatened? Are death threats against him (which are illegal) justified and acceptable because his beliefs are considered bad enough that the rule of law should be suspended in this case?

- - - Updated - - -

Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

Or alternatively, defending the right of both employers and individuals to be free from threats of violence on the basis of their beliefs.

That is a separate issue. Duh.

Well, no, that's actually the issue in this case.

 

[LordKiran]

The big mistake he made was: extensively expressing his views to a popular & widely distributed publication (the first article). He made himself a public figure, somewhat of a poster-child, for views he knew were very controversial and hated by most. Even if his bosses wanted to keep him, they were put into a serious bind because of the article.
He was foolish if he didn’t realize there might be some serious consequences because of the article.

I get that, and I'm not suggesting that he should be protected from the consequences of his actions.

But does that justify the actions in this case? Does it justify his employer getting threatened? Or his family being threatened? Are death threats against him (which are illegal) justified and acceptable because his beliefs are considered bad enough that the rule of law should be suspended in this case?

- - - Updated - - -

Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

Or alternatively, defending the right of both employers and individuals to be free from threats of violence on the basis of their beliefs.

That is a separate issue. Duh.

Well, no, that's actually the issue in this case.

Nobody wants to be known as "The place that nazi guy works at." You can argue the merits or lack thereof of a system that allows companies to fire employees for expressing their views, but I think you'd get more traction arguing that point when conglomerate owned media companies phase out employees with viewpoints they don't like than you will trying to stand up for a neo nazi who openly proclaims himself such.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, no, that's actually the issue in this case.

It is an issue, but is not the issue.

 

[Underseer]

Can someone get these two fired?



This video comes to mind in response:

Oh, look, anti-semitic videos from someone sporting a Nazi flag. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Can't you see how shocked I am? This is my shocked face.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, no, that's actually the issue in this case.

It is an issue, but is not the issue.

The "issue" you seem to want to showcase is a strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody wants to be known as "The place that nazi guy works at." You can argue the merits or lack thereof of a system that allows companies to fire employees for expressing their views, but I think you'd get more traction arguing that point when conglomerate owned media companies phase out employees with viewpoints they don't like than you will trying to stand up for a neo nazi who openly proclaims himself such.

I'm standing up for a small business owner who received threats of violence unless he fired an employee. That's a bit different from him just not wanting to be known as "that place".

 

[laughing dog]

The "issue" you seem to want to showcase is a strawman.

That conclusion is based on an erroneous understanding of the meaning of "straw man".

 

[Emily Lake]

The "issue" you seem to want to showcase is a strawman.

That conclusion is based on an erroneous understanding of the meaning of "straw man".

Why don't you explain how your version is accurate?

 

[laughing dog]

The "issue" you seem to want to showcase is a strawman.

That conclusion is based on an erroneous understanding of the meaning of "straw man".

Why don't you explain how your version is accurate?

You seem to be under the delusion that your issue is the only issue. It is not. I am not responding or addressing your issue. I am addressing the issue whether or not employee whose is either an idiot or a Nazi sympathizer has the right to keep her/his job if she/he is competent.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why don't you explain how your version is accurate?

You seem to be under the delusion that your issue is the only issue. It is not. I am not responding or addressing your issue. I am addressing the issue whether or not employee whose is either an idiot or a Nazi sympathizer has the right to keep her/his job if she/he is competent.

Exactly whose issue is it that you're addressing?

 

[laughing dog]

Why don't you explain how your version is accurate?

You seem to be under the delusion that your issue is the only issue. It is not. I am not responding or addressing your issue. I am addressing the issue whether or not employee whose is either an idiot or a Nazi sympathizer has the right to keep her/his job if she/he is competent.

Exactly whose issue is it that you're addressing?

whichphilosophy's - which you might have known if you had read thread with a modicum of basic reading comprehension.

 

[Emily Lake]

Exactly whose issue is it that you're addressing?

whichphilosophy's - which you might have known if you had read thread with a modicum of basic reading comprehension.

You seem to have done a fair bit of hyperbolization and strawman erecting to sculpt the issue you want to argue against.

 

[Emily Lake]

General questions:

If a person were interviewed, and expressed their belief that black people should be allowed to live separate from other races, and volunteered their involvement in a black separatist organization... would you support the right of the employer to fire them for holding a bigoted and dangerous belief?

If a person were interviewed, and expressed their belief in Islam, and their organization in an organization that seeks to institute Sharia law in the US... would you support the right of the employer to fire them for holding a bigoted and dangerous belief?

+++++

Would your view on either of those situations alter if the person in question were fired, not for their job performance or even necessarily due to their employer's disagreement with their belief... but because the employer received threats of violence and death if he failed to fire the person in question?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Exactly whose issue is it that you're addressing?

whichphilosophy's - which you might have known if you had read thread with a modicum of basic reading comprehension.

It's a no brainer really. If a person does their job they are entitled to the own views.

Amazingly a burger which is correctly cooked by a Nazi tastes the same as one cooked by a communist using an identical method.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

General questions:

If a person were interviewed, and expressed their belief that black people should be allowed to live separate from other races, and volunteered their involvement in a black separatist organization... would you support the right of the employer to fire them for holding a bigoted and dangerous belief?

If a person were interviewed, and expressed their belief in Islam, and their organization in an organization that seeks to institute Sharia law in the US... would you support the right of the employer to fire them for holding a bigoted and dangerous belief?

+++++

Would your view on either of those situations alter if the person in question were fired, not for their job performance or even necessarily due to their employer's disagreement with their belief... but because the employer received threats of violence and death if he failed to fire the person in question?

Some types of racists are separatists and some are genocidal, some both. Nazis are both. At least write the right questions...

 

[laughing dog]

Exactly whose issue is it that you're addressing?

whichphilosophy's - which you might have known if you had read thread with a modicum of basic reading comprehension.

You seem to have done a fair bit of hyperbolization and strawman erecting to sculpt the issue you want to argue against.

You seem to have done a fair bit of hyperbolization and strawman erecting to sculpt the issue you want to argue against.

We appear to agree on something - that you have no clue what you are posting about.

What started this particular line was post #61 where whichphilosophy wrote
This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

And this was written clearly in the context of this particular Nazi sympathizer.

With that in mind, please explain what you straw men and hyperboles I have erected.

 

[laughing dog]

It's a no brainer really. If a person does their job they are entitled to the own views.

Amazingly a burger which is correctly cooked by a Nazi tastes the same as one cooked by a communist using an identical method.

And if the business drops because the Nazi is the cook? What if the owners or some co-workers had family murdered by Nazis during WWII? What if productivity of the other workers suffers because they are afraid of a Nazi?